Before we go on to Committee Stage of this Bill, I should indicate to the House that amendment No. 1 in the name of Senator Lanigan is out of order on the ground that it involves a potential charge on public revenue.
Canals Bill 1985: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
When the Office of Public Works take over the canals, will that interfere with people who are living in lock keepers houses at the moment? Will they have the same rights after that? With regard to the question of retiring at 65 will that be the same when it comes to taking over?
All of those questions will arise on section 3.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
With regard to this section which deals with the transfer of staff, I would like to go a little bit into the background of what has happened to date and expand on it because it is an area of great concern. Initially, a group of Labour Party Senators, with the permission of the Labour Party, approached the Ministers responsible, Deputies Mitchell and Nealon, in relation to the inclusion of specific wording which is not too different from what Senator Lanigan has presented here today. Indeed we were given an indication that there would be no difficulty in this area.
I am confused about the whole issue, because the suggested amendment to the Act would certainly be in line with the provisions of Statutory Instrument No. 306 from the European Communities 1980. I would like to point out a few things in relation to that statutory instrument. The regulations which came into operation on 3 November 1980 implement an EC directive aimed at safeguarding the rights of employees in the event of the transfer of ownership of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses which entail a change of employer. Equally, where as a result of such a transfer a change of employer occurs the regulations provide for several things. The rights and obligations arising from an employment contract or relationship are thereby transferred from the original owner to the new owner. They also provide for the fact that the new owner must continue to observe the terms and conditions of any collective agreement until it expires or is superseded. Equally the regulations provide for the original owner and the new owner consulting with representatives of the respective employees in good time.
The terms of consultation are laid down as follows: the reasons for the transfer, the legal, economic and social implications for the employees and the measures envisaged which may affect the employees. There is also a provision that notices should be displayed containing these particulars in the workplace. Were there any consultations with the CIE staff who will be transferring to OPW? If there were, when? I understand that there were no consultations. The CIE staff are very concerned that there were no consultations and that a specific wording, as indicated and supported fully by Senator Lanigan, is not included in the Bill. The main point I am making is that if the statutory instrument provides for the working of the suggested amendment, which I grant is out of order, or equally the amendment which we have proposed, why not do the simple thing and include the wording?
I was disappointed that the Chair disallowed this particular amendment. The Bill was given a great welcome here. The only problems that people had, apart from the day to day running of the canals by the new commissioners, were on the pay and conditions of staff who will be transferred from CIE to the new commissioners under the Office of Public Works. The indications are that right up to the date this Bill was introduced here, the same wording of section 37 of the Transport Act, 1950 was included in this Bill, but for some reason somebody took out the particular sections which were giving the staff being transferred a reasonable chance that they would not suffer as a result of the transfer. The Transport Act, 1950 states categorically:
For the purposes of sections 38, 39 and 40 an officer or servant of the Board shall be deemed to suffer a worsening of his conditions of service as an officer or servant of the Board, if, by reason of the transfer effected by section 36...he suffers any direct pecuniary loss or is in a worse position in respect of the conditions of his service as a whole, including tenure of office or employment, remuneration, gratuities, superannuation, sick fund or other benefits or allowances, whether obtaining legally or by customary practice....
The term "whether legally or by customary practice" gives the protection that is needed when people are being transferred. It continues:
applicable to himself or his widow, children or other dependants as compared with those obtaining in respect of him before the transfer.
Section 38 (3) states:
where a person whom this section applies suffers a worsening of his conditions of service by reason of the transfer effected by section 36 or is transferred on the grounds of redundancy from one position in the service of the board to another, he shall be paid by the board compensation consisting of a lump sum of such amount as is reasonable.
I do not intend to go into the question of compensation. We should not have to go into the question of compensation. We are dealing here with protection of the rights of people who are being transferred from one semi-state body to another. We are only talking about 75 people in this instance. We transferred the total staff of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, divided them between An Bord Telecom and An Post and the very conditions of transfer that we are looking for for these 75 people were applicable to the 40,000 people who were transferred from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I cannot understand why this particular set of guarantees has been omitted from this section of the Bill. The Minister indicated previously that he would look at this particular section. I was relatively satisfied that the Minister was going along with the reservations being expressed by us. When I put in this amendment to section 3 I felt I was pushing against an open door. It is quite obvious that I cannot put the amendment, but I would like to hear the Minister's comments on what I have said.
I would like to support the plea that the present staff should not suffer any disadvantage. I have spoken to some of them and there are only 75, as Senator Lanigan has said. Some of them have certain privileges which might not be given nowadays but the number involved is very small. It will lead to a lot of acrimony and difficulty in negotiations if they feel that they are being ill-treated and not treated in the same way as the people who were transferred to An Post and An Bord Telecom. Like the other speakers, I would hope that when we come to a later stage the Minister will be able to see his way to guarantee to those people who are already in employment that they will not be worse off. Perhaps at this stage I should ask about the lock-keepers.
Unfortunately, last week I was away on official public business and was not here to make a Second Stage speech.
On section 3, we have come to the nub of the situation. There is a lot of worry and fear. Under the 1950 Act the entire staff of the canal system were transferred to CIE. This comprised almost 700 people. This included the Barrow navigation, the Grand Canal and the Royal Canal. I would very strongly support the case made by Senator Lanigan. While the section at present employs some 75 of 76 people, they fall into a number of categories. Not all of those employees of CIE enjoy the same benefits or perks. Those benefits are dependent on from whence they were transferred into their present positions. They come from a variety of backgrounds. There are quite a number of different locations. In the main, the headquarters of the section is in Tullamore where there are 25 of 26 employed, and I would hope that the Office of Public Works will continue to keep the headquarters of the canals section there. It is important that they should. The remainder of the staff are distributed in different areas. There are ten of a maintenance crew employed in Graiguenamanagh, around ten people in Dublin, eight people employed in Killucan and this leaves 25 or 26 people employed in Tullamore.
The employees themselves have been interested in this particular problem for some months now. They were led to believe that in the earlier drafts of the Bill the same phraseology was included as is in the 1950 Act. The original and earlier drafts of the Bill included words to the same effect as Senator Lanigan included in his amendment.
We are talking here of a few people who will be significantly worse off. The travelling facilities would not cost the State or the Office of Public Works any money. From that point of view I would dispute the ruling that Senator Lanigan's proposal would impose a cost on the State. In actual fact, if the people retain the facilities they have ——
My advisers tell me different.
I appreciate that, but no actual cash or money will be transferred between the Office of Public Works and CIE or anybody else. I do not wish to pursue that matter except to make one point. These people were informed in July and I would like to put on the record of the House correspondence from the chief engineer of CIE. I quote:
While I am of course prepared to meet you to discuss the matters you raise, I feel there is little point in doing so at the present time. The legislation will provide for the transfer of the nominated staff to the O.P.W. and employees will not as a whole be subject to less beneficial conditions of service than those presently enjoyed. I am not aware of any option available to the nominated Canal staff in relation to the transfer, and the O.P.W. have been so informed. It is CIE's intention that the staff who are at present employed on the Canals will transfer when the ownership of the Canals changes hands. I suggest, therefore, that our discussion be deferred until the final legislation is put to the Houses of the Oireachtas.
This letter was addressed to members of the staff from the chief engineer of CIE. A similar letter was received from the chief engineer on 31 January which states as follows:
I refer to your letter of 24.1.1985, in respect of the Executive and Supervisory staff of your Association who are being transferred to the Commissioners of Public Works who are taking over control and operation of the Grand and Royal Canals.
The Canals Bill 1985 provides for CIE's canal employees becoming officers or servants of the Commissioners on the nominated vesting day. Since following the transfer such staff will not be CIE employees, they can no longer be entitled to the facilities they enjoy at present.
I think that is a little too much. We are talking about fewer than 12 people who at present enjoy free transport and have a free medical service. Some of the employees are provided with motor cars for the execution of their official functions of inspection and so on. There will be significant changes made and their conditions of service will certainly be worsened.
I should like to ask the Minister why there has been a change from the original draft of the Bill and why there has been such a significant departure from what has appertained in the transfer to An Post and An Bord Telecom. The precedent is certainly there, and I would hope that the Minister will be able to give the House an assurance that he will include a suitable amendment on the next stage.
Before I call on the Minister I would like to say that there was no alternative but to rule the amendment out.
I appreciate that.
I think I have been very kind to the Senators in allowing them to discuss this and I hope the Minister will reply to it in that way.
I appreciate that and I did not intend any disrespect. I was pointing out the fact that in this case there would be absolutely no funding, which is unusual.
To take up the very last point made by Senator McDonald in regard to precedents, there are no clearcut precedents. The Transport Act, 1950, which was referred to, was moving from a private company to CIE. As far as the 1983 Postal and Telecommunications Services Act was concerned, it was moving out of State employment to semi-State employment. This is quite different. It is moving, if you like, from CIE into State employment. There are no direct precedents.
On the second last point he made, which is rather interesting, he talked about the drafts of the Bill. I am unaware that the drafts of the Bill were available to anyone outside the Government service. I can assure Senators and assure them very strongly that the absence of any statutory guarantee in the Bill does not imply that the people involved will suffer any worsening of their overall position taking due account of the relative benefits of their employment with CIE and the employment they will now have with the Office of Public Works.
Senators will be very well aware of the difference that exists in pay, fringe benefits and superannuation benefits between the two employments and indeed the difference between the various conditions of the employees transferring. These will be taken into account in the negotiations concerning the staff to be transferred. There are only 75 or 80 but despite that there are a whole variety of staffs within that and some of the staff were working part time on canals and part time on other CIE activities. There is a big variation there but I think a lot of the detailed arrangements for the transfer can be settled by negotiations in the ordinary way between the employers, CIE and, of course, the Commissioners of Public Works who will be the new employers and the staff involved in this, as part of the normal industrial relations operations.
Senator McAuliffe-Ennis asked about the negotiations. I think the preliminary work has been set up for these to begin but I am rather sad that elaborate negotiations have not taken place at this stage and I think they should start immediately. I know that I was pressed on this the last time and again all the Senators who have spoken — Senators Browne, McDonald, McAuliffe-Ennis and Senator Lanigan who had an amendment listed originally before it was declared out of order — all have been pressing as far as the staff is concerned and this I promised to take into consideration on the last occasion and I have had a look at it since but I have come up with nothing.
In the light of what the Senators have said I will undertake again to consider this matter before the Report Stage of the Bill to see if it will be possible for me to devise a provision for the Bill which would not interfere with the proper settlement of the transfer arrangements. Personally I do not believe that a statutory provision would make any difference to what would actually happen on the ground. There will be no worsening as far as the transferred staff are concerned. I know the feeling of the Senators from all sides of the House. Naturally I have an obligation to take that into consideration. That I will do and see if I can come up with something before the Report Stage.
I am not entirely happy about what the Minister has said to us. The Minister spoke about negotiations, that things will be clarified during negotiations and so on. What I am concerned about is when will negotiations take place. To say that negotiations will take place once the Bill has been passed by either House of the Oireachtas or both is a little bit late and in terms of good labour relations it is a bit much to ask the staff to negotiate for their position after the Bill has been enacted. I am not satisfied that the Minister answered fully, maybe I missed the point, but I am not clear that the Minister assured me strongly enough or gave me reason enough why section 5 of this Statutory Instrument was not complied with in terms of giving staff plenty of time and plenty of notice in terms of setting up negotiations.
The Minister did say the 1950 Act was an Act which transferred employees to CIE from the Grand Canal Company so we are not comparing like with like. Having said that, the 1956 Transport Act which transferred the Great Northern Railways staffs to CIE had the same precedents in terms of the transfer of employees. The 1963 Act which transferred the Dublin tramway workers to CIE gave the very same protection as was given in the 1950 Act. I agree with the Minister that we are not comparing like with like but we are talking in terms of the transfer of staffs from one particular transport organisation to another one. The point should be taken that there is absolutely no reason why the protection should not be included in this Bill.
I agree with Senator McAuliffe-Ennis that it is not satisfactory that negotiations on pay and conditions should take place after the transfer. I think that they should take place beforehand. I do not think that this is an area in which there is going to be any great conflict in and therefore if there is not going to be great conflict in it why create the sense of conflict when a very simple addition to the Bill would get over the problem.
The Bill is four or five years in drafting and I have absolutely no doubt but that the question of the employees came up time and time again. Whereas I take the point the Minister made about the draft not getting out of Government hands, events right throughout the legislative field over the past number of years would show that there is nothing that does not get out of drafting hands, there is nothing that is held by civil servants which is not allowed to be leaked if it suits people to leak documents. It is well known that the provisions were in the draft up to now. For the Minister to say that they did not get out of Government hands is a nonsense, I would say. Our information is that these provisions were there and I feel they should have been left there.
I accept the broad guarantees given by the Minister. I would like to break them down a small bit further. From 1772 to 1950 the Grand Canal Company had a record of never once evicting a lock keeper even after his retirement from one of the Grand Canal houses. There are 25 locks at present but there would be more houses than that because if we take the place in Carlow I think there are two houses there. Can the Minister go further and say that the tradition, the standards of the Grand Canal Company, which have been followed faithfully through with CIE as regards the care of their employees such as lock keepers when they retire, that that same spirit will continue to give that bit of protection to the lock keeper and indeed his widow for their lifetime.
That has been the policy that has been operated since 1772. Can we have an assurance that that will continue in the Office of Public Works? There are quite a number of people from different sectors who brought with them an entitlement to free transport. Free transport does not cost anything because it simply means that these people have vouchers or cards that enable them to hop on and off the transportation that is already there. Not all of the 75 staff have that facility. I am asking the Minister to give an undertaking that the 24 or 25 people who have that facility will be allowed to retain it, in other words that their conditions of employment will not suffer.
I am very glad that the Office of Public Works are taking over the canals because they are a tremendous infrastructural facility. We have three different canal networks in the midland counties. Their utilisation is being enjoyed by more and more people year after year, not only for the pleasure of boating but also for fishing. I rejoice in the fact that the Office of Public Works, who have such a good record in conservation and who will certainly look after them, are getting control of the canals. I would hope that they will be further developed for recreation, pleasure and fishing purposes.
It is important that the staff who are there to maintain the canals are happy and content in their work. This will be difficult if from day one, the day of the vesting in the Office of Public Works, they find they are losing. Free transport is a sizeable facility to have for a man, his wife and his family. Even school transport today is about £45 for each child per quarter. It is a sizeable sum for these people, the majority of whom would be ordinary, semi-skilled people and they would not have huge incomes. I hope the Minister will forgive us for presssing him but for the people involved it is a significant point. I would ask him to give us a guarantee specifically on the questions of transport and health.
I am very conscious of the points made again in this area. The outline Senator McDonald has just given demonstrates very clearly the difficulty of working this into statutory form. I have said that there will be no worsening of conditions. He talked about the fact that some people have the advantage of houses, other people have the advantage of free transport. It is possible that they might negotiate these things. There can be various negotiations. This is how it can be handled. There is a whole variety of complexities involved even though there are only 75 to 80 people. I have said there will be no worsening of conditions.
Deputy Lanigan spoke about the precedents. What we have here is for the first time there is not a precedent. They are moving from an outside sector into the State sector. That is something for which we do not have a clearcut precedent and of course that conveys fairly substantial advantages in itself.
Senator McAuliffe-Ennis brought up the subject of negotiations. I regret very much that negotiations have not been established at this stage. This Bill has to go through the Dáil later on so there is an amount of time in that area. On the other hand, I think negotiations should start immediately and I hope they will. There are all of these complexities and the various things that Senator McDonald and the other Senators have brought up to be considered. I gather very clearly — as I did on the previous occasion — the strong feeling of all the Senators on this issue. I will have another look at this situation and I will see what I can do by the time we reach Report Stage.
The Minister assures us that there will be no worsening of conditions. Let us take some of the conditions and look at them, for example, the car facilities which a small number of the staff have, the travel passes and the medical services which the staff enjoy. Is the Minister saying here today that these conditions will continue in existence?
The Minister implied that there was a difficulty in building into the Bill this type of certainty with regard to the position of staff. I would suggest that the wording submitted by Senator Lanigan would ensure that. If it is the case that the staff will not lose certain conditions is it not better to agree to Senator Lanigan's proposed amendment. Let us not get into a row where there was no need to have a difficulty in the first place.
We can labour this all day. We will not be taking the Report Stage of this Bill today. Between now and Report Stage I would like the Minister to come back with suggestions along the lines I have set down in this amendment and which have been reinforced by Senator McDonald and Senator McAuliffe-Ennis. We shall leave it to the Minister at this stage and hopefully we shall not have to raise these points again when he comes back on Report Stage.
I have been listening keenly to the contributions from other Members of the House, led by Senator Lanigan whose amendment did not see the light of day in the sense of approval by the Cathaoirleach.
I remember the circumstances relating to the people who lived at the Grand Canal basin here in Dublin and the negotiations that went on with Córas Iompair Éireann in relation to their future housing. As a public representative I had to deal with a few of them in the past. I think it is one thing to look after the future housing of these people. I understand there may be up to 25 who are living, many in the most attractive countryside, in lock houses and cottages which would be very much sought after if they were available to the general public. But I think it is important to raise not just their tenure by way of the caretaker's arrangement they presumably have with CIE continuing into the future and to those who will succeed them in the ordinary way but the situation that might arise where the widow of one of these people, who has given long service to CIE, would expect to live out her last hours in such accommodation. Indeed it could be the other way round: presumably there are some women employed by the system also. Whether they are living in cottages is another day's work. It is one thing to allow them the tenure of these buildings but it is another thing to expect from the Office of Public Works some reasonable standard of maintenance of these properties until such time as they are vacated and are available to the Office of Public Works. Many of them will be an attractive feature of the then developed canal system in X years time when we get around to all the plans the Minister spoke about the other day, which will make the canal system a tremendous new facility. I would hope that we are not just protecting the people who live there but also protecting them and those who live with them in a decent standard of maintenance, at least the same standard of maintenance which has been provided by CIE.
Everyone agrees with Senator FitzGerald about the great potential of canals and the importance of their maintenance and of their appearance as well as their functional capacity in the future. This is going into very good hands, the hands of the Commissioners of Public Works, despite the reservations of Senator FitzGerald about them as fishery owners. As far as the situation we are concerned with at the moment is concerned I have given an undertaking that in the light of all I have heard here — it is very strongly expressed on all sides — I will see what can be done before the Report Stage of this Bill. I will see if it is possible to devise some provision which would not interfere with the proper settlement of the transfer arrangements. It is more complex than it may seem with 75 to 80 people involved. Leave it with us. Senators have my goodwill. This is a very important Bill which inaugurates a new era for the canals. The number involved is not great. We are not talking about any substantial amount of resources. It is a limited number but it is a question of getting it right. Even if there were not difficulties I would not be coming in here with those particular sections or amenments that I said I would look up the last time. I will get it if it is at all possible. If not, we will be explaining why. I am optimistic that something may emerge from this Bill.
I want to thank the Minister for his understanding. There is just one other not insignificant point. I would like the Minister to give us a guarantee that the headquarters and 25 staff presently domiciled since 1972 in Tullamore would remain there.
I cannot give that guarantee until I get all the requests from other centres who would like the headquarters in their area.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
On section 4 — it is not a major point in one sense but I think it is something that should be adverted to — there is the fact that all the documents, titles and records are to be handed over to the commissioners. Handing over documents and protecting them from damage are two different things. When one looks at the fact that there are documents in connection with the canals going back to 1715 and that they do have within them a lot of the social and economic history of the midlands and the south Leinster area, we should not just allow that these be handed over. They should be handed over on condition that they would be examined for any damage which has been caused to them, possibly because of lack of knowledge of the value of them and that this be rectified if possible. They are being held in various places throughout the country. They are a reference point which should be used and could be used by scholars of the social and economic history of the areas. They could give the basis again for what could be a magnificent museum, detailing the changes that are taking place both economically and socially in the areas which are covered by the canals. I want to ask the Minister that when these documents are being transferred that they could be looked at — presumably the Office of Public Works will be dealing with them — also by the Museum and genealogical people to make certain that they are not just dumped into some set of boxes in the Office of Public Works and forgotten.
I want to support what Senator Lanigan has said. I was on the same line. I would hate to see these documents which contain so much information on our social history being transferred to Dublin for safe-keeping and kept there so safely that nobody would ever see them. I would further suggest that when they have been settled down, recorded and everybody knows where they are they should be sent down the country to areas of special interest. I am thinking of Carlow with its museum. It would be very important that that museum be given the care of these documents for a certain length of time, or even the public library. This would obviate the need for everybody from St. Mullins right up along the canal coming to Dublin to the Museum to see these documents. I know the documents are very sacred. I would hate if the Minister decided that these documents were so sacred that they would be safe. I brought up to the Museum on one occasion a stone axe-head that one of the children brought into school. I do not know whether I was wise or not. I could have it in school. It is buried down in the dungeon. It will never be seen again. It is on a catalogue, I am quite sure. The same will happen to these documents. They will be safe. The Minister will be responsible for them. He will make sure they are safe and nobody will read them. I am asking the Minister to make sure that they are not hidden away for ever.
I would also like to support what has been said by Members here in regard to the preservation and in particular to the preservation of the archives. I do not want to anticipate in any way discussion of the Bill that we hope to have shortly, but this is terribly important. There is a greater consciousness nowadays of the need for this preservation. There should be some note of warning in this House, because the record of the Office of Public Works is not all that good. I am talking from personal experience.
I happen to be interested in the history of civil engineering in Ireland in the 19th century. I had occasion some years ago to go and look at the records of the Office of Public Works on the drainage works which were done during the famine period. They were very proud of the fact that during the war, when there was a great campaign for waste paper, they had not given all the papers they had out for waste paper. They proudly said that they had maintained all the printed records and they had only handed out the manuscript material. In other words, they had retained in their archives all the material that was in the National Library, all the material that was part of the printed records of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, all the copies of the printed material which is available in the library of the Institute of Civil Engineers Ireland, but the really priceless material of the manuscript reports of district engineers working on these particular works during the famine period were all gladly consigned. I do not want to go into more recent history. Many people who have campaigned for preservation in this city are not entirely happy with the record of the Office of Public Works. I ask the Minister with the duties he has and the further duties he soon will have in this connection just to keep a sharp eye on this organisation.
I am delighted to see the emphasis being given by the House to this section dealing with the records. This may be one of the bonuses of introducing a Bill into the Upper House where perhaps there is more time for the finer points——
We take time.
——than they have in the other House. These documents are, of course, of great general public interest. I described them on Second Stage as a national asset like the canals themselves. They give a great picture of the social, commercial and economic life of a very significant section of the country over a very long period. I am naturally concerned with these in two capacities, one which is a transitory one, as Minister of State in the Department of Communications where we are just handing them over to the Office of Public Works — and that is my function here — but I am also concerned with them as Minister of State with responsibility for Arts and Culture. I propose having discussions in advance with Córas Iompair Éireann and the Office of Public Works before this actual transfer takes place.
As the Senators are aware we are setting up national archives. I understand this Bill will be published very shortly. After many years of waiting we have managed to get it out now. This is a major new development. This, of course, deals with records of the public service. I understand the ones with which we are concerned are very bulky.
I must also refer to the point that Senator Browne made. I do not believe in any of the treasures, artefacts, or the stone axe-head, gathering dust anywhere. If we have these things they should be made available to the public in the most convenient fashion. I like the idea put forward that perhaps the ideal location for records of this nature might be in some of the libraries or museums in the particular area, depending on the discussions and examination of what is involved. I know it is not totally relevant to the Bill here before us, but I can give Senator Browne a guarantee that his stone axe will not remain too much longer in the basement. Great extra facilities are being made available in the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham to relieve the chronic overcrowding of the National Museum. It is not the fault of the staff or anyone else but there was nothing we could do about it. However, we will have wonderful extra space available for them in the very near future.
I presume that that stone axe will go back to Carlow and that it will not remain in the Royal Hospital in Kilmainham. I sincerely hope that the artefacts which came from Kilkenny and which formed the basis of the first archaeological society, will be removed from the basement of the museum and returned to Kilkenny and not go out to the Royal Hospital in Kilmainham.
I feel that all these records should be microfilmed and the records should be kept within the locality. Generally, in this part of the country we do not pay enough attention to our records because, for example, the old minute books in the workhouses and other documents are being microfilmed and catalogued by a university in the North of Ireland. We did not do that work ourselves. In keeping all the records of a locality in the area it will encourage local historians of which I am one to work on them. Also, in that regard, we in Kells feel that the Book of Kells really belongs to Kells and should be kept in Kells. We are hoping that some time it will be returned to Kells.
It is in four parts now.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 2 is related to amendment No. 3 and these may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, lines 30 to 33, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
(2) The Commissioners shall consult with the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry on all matters that relate to fishing and to fisheries management on the canals at all stages of works of improvement or development of canals and canals property.
I would like to request the Minister to accept the amendments which I have drafted with my colleague, Senator McDonald in relation to the aspect of coarse fishing on the canal system. I developed these points at some considerable length in my Second Stage speech last week but I have reservations about section 2 as drafted in the Canals Bill, 1985. It reads:
Where it appears to the commissioners that any works of improvement or development of the canal property would be likely to seriously affect fish stocks in the canals they should consult with the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry.
My reservation on this matter arises out of a very mixed experience of the Office of Public Works. I, like Senator Dooge, have found them to be extraordinarily good, as can be seen in many parts of the country, in the way they look after some of the ancient remains in County Meath, and when you see the Royal Hospital in Kilmainham and so on. That represents their good side. Even around Leinster House from time to time they can show excellence in the quality of their work and their dedication to not alone using their own personnel, who are of a very high standard, but equally availing of advisers from outside where the particular skill or expertise is required. But I happen to be one of the 12 or so musketeers along with some other Members of these Houses who appeared on the site at Wood Quay when the first clear demonstration was made to the Office of Public Works that we were not satisfied with the way in which certain manipulation was going on with the National Museum and the way in which they were ignoring the advice given by the National Monuments Committee in relation to the site and the very great remains found of early civilisation in this city, remains that were far more significant than what was found in many parts of the city of York in England which is regarded by experts as being a very leading place. Indeed they have benefited because of the attitude that the city of York has had by large funding coming in from Scandinavian and American interests into that city — something which we missed the boat on, as we are all too good at from time to time.
Are the commissioners necessarily all knowledgeable, know all that is likely to affect fish and fish management and the maintenance and development of the canals system in the interest of just this one aspect — and I am speaking of fishing and the potential that fishing has? I stressed last week the various uses that could go side by side in the development of the canal system.
I talked about the fact that there could be a leisure park on one side which could be used by fishermen and fisherwomen — I think I might have said fishwomen the last day but that would not be unsuitable for a Dubliner who sings that song quite frequently when I am called on to do so — and on the other side there could be room for cyclists and there would be a general feeling that the canal system was made as attractive as possible to as wide an interest as possible, environmentally and as a great leisure amenity. It undoubtedly is a great leisure amenity, but I question whether the commissioners are themselves capable of knowing all that will affect the area of fishing. As I have said, if the National Federation of Coarse Fishing has 2,500 members, there is a much larger number of 5,000 who do not necessarily participate actively but who are there with an interest in this area and have been active members.
Some 353 youngsters in the city of Dublin were encouraged by Dublin Corporation last year to get on the banks at Portobello and Phibsboro to engage in fishing competitions. This was the very first year for this event, and a tremendous number of young schoolchildren went out with their fishing rods and showed an interest in this activity. This is an activity that should be encouraged.
As I have said, CIE are not experts on fishing either. I mentioned a particular type of herbicide that they were using in the canals system which might have been done in the interest of clearing away the weeds but they would not necessarily know what part of the canal it was important to clear, whether it was just enough to be clearing the channel in the middle to allow craft pass up and down, and it appears that they went beyond that. They went into the nutritional attractions of the banks of the canal where the fish stocks are found and where they get their nutrition. I could not expect the commissioners of the Office of Public Works, who do such a wide variety of things, from the building of garda stations, to prisons, to handling the new reception centre here in Leinster House, to dealing with extensions to the National Gallery, to also be experts on fish and fish management.
I do not see how the commissioners could decide on how any works improving or developing the canals would be likely to seriously affect fish and fish management. They should not be deciding this. The Department of Forestry and Fisheries should be treated as having a primary interest in this area and should be consulted on a regular basis in relation to all development works relating to the canals.
You said, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, that amendment No. 3 could be taken with amendment No. 2, and I would be pleased to do that because it just clarifies the areas where the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry would have responsibility and expertise, and that is in the areas of water quality control, biological, ecological and fish stocks management and the regulation and control of fishing. Section 7, paragraph (f) says:
the regulation of fishing in the canals (other than matters in respect of which the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry may make by-laws under section 9 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959);
I am specifying the direction of the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry in the areas that have been mentioned, the part and parcel of the broad understanding that is necessary to protect fish life and those who are interested in fishing, the sporting attraction of fishing and the overall general development of the canal system from the point of view of leisure so that we are not seen to simply develop the canals as a visual amenity but also one that has very many attractions to people of varying skills and interests. Certainly hobbies and sport must be a primary part of what the Office of Public Works should be directed at in future. I welcome this Bill, but I would like the Minister to respond on this.
I would like to go along with Senator FitzGerald on this. It does harden up this section. The section itself is very vague. You have such sentences in it as "undertake the care and maintenance of the canals and other canal property as a public amenity for use by the public for navigation on such parts of the canals as are open to navigation from time to time, or fishing or otherwise...". If you do not consult with the fisheries boards under the Fisheries Act or the Minister for Fisheries it is very hard to say how normal maintenance could be carried out on the canal and to expect people who possibly have no great interest in fishing to be able to decide as to the best timing for the closure, how best to deal with the fish in the actual area that is being closed for maintenance and how you could protect the food that the fish use.
Section 5 makes a fundamental change in the Act in that under the old Act CIE had no power to say that the canal could be used as a public amenity; the only power they had was that the canals had to be kept open or that they had to be maintained as a source of navigation. Section 5 is extremely vague, but it does confer on the new commissioners powers that CIE did not have. For that reason the Department of Fisheries would have to be at all times consulted when we are talking about fishing rights. The coarse angling on the canal system is of major benefit at present. Stretches of the canals are used by foreigners and the local people; there are commercial eel fisheries which could be developed; there are also competition stretches which could also be used. These amendments would firm up that section of the Bill.
Again, there is a vagueness in saying "such parts of the canal as, are open to navigation from time to time"...How are we to know what "from time to time" means? Are we talking about maintenance? Are we talking about closure for fishing? Are we talking about total closure for navigation so that a swimming pool could be used in a certain area totally for swimming? There are a number of items of public amenity which could be involved here which would mean that virtually at times the canals would not be open to navigation. That section needs to be looked at further from the point of view of vagueness, but it equally needs firming up in regard to the responsibilities as between the Office of Public Works and the Department of Fisheries.
I could not agree more with Senator Lanigan. This section is one of the sections about which I am particularly worried. It is very vague; it does a whole lot of things and still it does nothing. For example, it gives the commissioners a duty to do something but it does not clarify what the duty is. Senator Lanigan said that the canals should be open for use by the public for navigation in such parts of the canals as are open to navigation. That could mean the death knell of the Royal Canal. It could mean that at Riverstown in Killucan where we have a very weedy area we will be left with our weedy area and at the same time, without being too parochial and being very serious about the point, Palmerstown, where you have a marvellous Arts project at present is totally wasted. As against that in the Mullingar area you had an environmental work scheme which has not restored that section of the canal to navigation but rather as an amenity. Within a stretch of eight to ten miles you have a part of the canal that has been restored to navigation, another part is weedy and dry and in Mullingar you have more work and more moneys being spent for an amenity. This amendment, which I support identifies clearly what is wrong with the Bill. It is a Bill particularly in this section which clearly identifies areas of conflict, one being the amenities versus navigation. A more serious consequence of that is that Longford County Council have submitted to the Department of the Environment an application to go ahead and build a culvert while at the same time in County Westmeath you had built at Ballinea a bridge which is navigable at considerably greater cost.
I mentioned in my Second Stage speech that we must give priority to this Bill, the priority of navigation. I would like to be realistic about the prospects for navigation in terms of the Royal Canal. We all know that, at a cost of £1½ million minimum, eight culverts are not all of a sudden going to disappear in Longford. I equally know that until those culverts do disappear or are changed or otherwise you cannot restore the Royal Canal to full navigation. What one can do is be practical about it, and that is restore to navigation the part of the canal as far as Ballymahon. In recognising that restoration to navigation is not something that is going to happen within a short time, you can make provision for consultation, not in a casual way but on definite, strong lines of liaison with Fisheries and various other Departments, once having established a basic principle that the canals are for navigation but that one can incorporate the interests of fishing groups.
I appreciate the spirit of the Bill. I appreciate what the Minister is endeavouring to do in the Bill. In order to clarify the situation we have submitted this amendment. The canals network that the Office of Public Works will inherit after the vesting day extends from New Ross to Kildare and across to the Shannon and from Dublin to the Shannon on both the Royal and the Grand Canals. It is a fairly extensive network of waterway. I would not like to see the Office of Public Works having to set up their own small section on fishery protection or fishery management. While we have in Ireland a well developed arm in the public service dealing specifically with fish management and control and licensing and so on, our amendment proposes to clarify and stiffen up the provision and not just give the commissioners an opportunity if they think fit to consult with the Department of Fisheries and Forestry but to have the management use the Department as their agent in fisheries matters.
It is quite clear that the waterways network is not going to be used for commercial purposes. I would not envisage Guinness or the sugar company or Odlum's Mills reverting back to transport on the canals. It is reasonable to expect that from now on the canals will be used mainly for recreational and for pleasure purposes. I have had experience of CIE's management of the canals over the past number of years, especially of fishing competitions. Each year we have a festival on the canal in Vicarstown, County Laois, which is near the Kildare border at Athy, and the organisers allege that when CIE spray the weeds in the canal in order to assist the fishing competitions the fish do not like the spray and move off. When one writes to CIE in the normal way one will eventually get a reply and CIE will say that all their tests show that their spray is not injurious to fish. But when you are watching from the bank the fish actually move away because they do not like the taste in the water when it is sprayed.
I would hope that in areas that are ideal for coarse fishing competitions the Office of Public Works would cut the weeds and would have regard for the local organisations and the individuals who are availing of the facilities. There should be greater understanding of their needs. In the tourist industry greater use can be made of existing waterways.
Therefore, it is important that there should be appropriate management. From that point of view I would hope that the Office of Public Works would engage the appropriate section of the Department of Fisheries to manage and advise on both the stocking of the different canal sections and maintenance work such as cutting the weeds. That is the reason for strengthening that section of the Bill and not leaving it as it reads. This would allow the Office of Public Works to consult the the Department if they thought fit.
I support the amendment and I would echo what the Senators have said about the necessity to deal with matters of fisheries through those who are best qualified to do so. I would like to underline what Senator McAuliffe-Ennis said about the priority of navigation on the canal, because while I accept that it is unlikely that the canals will be used in a large way commercially for navigation in future, at the same time they have enormous potential as tourist and other attractions for navigational purposes. In the places where they can be navigated many of us have had great pleasure visiting them and going on the canal boats. It should be made quite clear in this section that they will be interested in opening more parts of the canal to navigation and not just dealing with the parts which are at present open to navigation.
One of the virtues of the other amendment put down by Senators FitzGerald and McDonald is that it will take out a glaring split infinitive in the third line of subsection (2), where we have "to seriously affect" rather than "seriously to affect". I may seem to be carping but as a past teacher of English I would prefer that the draftsman would avoid split infinitives.
I do not know to whom I should refer the last remark of Senator McGuinness. The purpose of this section is clearly to place the Commissioners of Public Works under the obligation to maintain the canals for public amenity and recreational purposes and to maintain canals properly, which also serves the railway of CIE. The Commissioners of Public Works must consult with the Minister for Fisheries before undertaking works likely seriously to affect fish stocks in the canals. There are also provisions about obliging CIE to maintain property retained in its ownership which also serves either the Grand Canal or the Royal Canal. In subsequent sections we will be dealing with those areas in more detail.
The canals involve more than 250 miles of waterways, and these are in varying states of repair. Over 30 miles of the Royal Canal, which is 90 miles in all, is dry and most of that is in the Longford area. There can be no question of the Office of Public Works suddenly producing a major plan and saying "Here it is, we are bringing all the canals back to their pristine state and are having everything organised at once". We do not have the type of resources available for that kind of work. What the Office of Public Works will be doing is assessing the embankments and so forth. There is provision in the section we are dealing with here, which touches on one of the amendments to section 7, so that they can have orderly organisation of this work. It may be necessary to shut the canals down for a certain period while work is going on. This happens all of the time, and that is provided for.
I will deal with the amendments to section 5. They are specifically in the fisheries area. I can be very categorical in assuring the Senators that the special interests and responsibilities of the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry in this matter are properly safeguarded. This matter has been discussed in order to ensure that this will be so. In addition to the specific consultation requirements of section 5 (2) I can inform the House that the Government have decided that there is to be a liaison committee established specifically for this purpose between the Office of Public Works and the Department of Fisheries and Forestry in order to consider matters in relation to improvements or development of canal property where this is likely to affect the fish stocks over the entire area of the domain of the Office of Public Works. There is no reason to doubt that the liaison committee will be of mutual benefit and very much of benefit to fishing on the canal.
Senators Dooge, FitzGerald and McDonald have been critical in certain respects of the Office of Public Works, but this is coming into the care of the Office of Public Works, and their brief is conservation of this natural resource. Their track record is over a very wide and varied area — part of the criticism is that perhaps it is too varied and that the OPW are not fish people. I have seen them organise and work in areas which were new to them and my belief is that they are very good and very caring and that they are taking the canals into their care with a great deal of enthusiasm. They want the canals and they regard them as an integral part of our national heritage which can be likened to the great parks that they have responsibility for. I have no doubt that they will do a very good job for canal fishing.
I will refer to a section which exists already in the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959, which empowers the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry to make by-laws for the government, management, protection and improvement of fisheries in the State whether these fisheries are in private or public ownership. That obviously involves the fishery element of the canals. These are necessarily wide powers so as to conserve and improve the stocks. Among the matters which may be covered by such by-laws are time and seasons for taking particular species of fish, the locations at which fishing may take place and the fishing equipment which may be used. There are very wide powers for the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry. There is the liaison committee, and in view of that I would ask the Senators not to press this amendment. The amendment would give statutory grounds for challenging the Commissioners of Public Works. This, by extension, could give grounds for challenging them over a wide range of the management and development of the canals and other property.
The Bill simply recognises the rights and duties of the commissioners, which any property owners should have, to see that their property is used safely and properly by fisher folk. That is, fisher folk should not endanger swimmers, or pedestrians on the canal banks, or interfere with boating. Boats wish to pass without hindrance and people walking along do not want to get a hook or fly in their eye or ear. So we must have this housekeeping regulation and that is what this section does. It makes it clear that the commissioners, in exercising that right and duty, cannot impinge on matters within the responsibility of the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, some of which I have just outlined, in this Bill. I am satisfied that the special liaison committee which the Government have decided to have established between the Office of Public Works and the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, will give the necessary attention to the detailed aspect of fish stocks and fishery management of the canals and other canal property transferred to the commissioners. I am satisfied that the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry will see to it that the provisions of the Wildlife Act, 1976, and other legislation for which he has responsibility will be applied as necessary to the property transferred.
I have always taken a great interest in the fishery aspect of the canals. Once I heard it debated in Dáil Éireann many years ago when I was present as a reporter. Mr. James Dillon was speaking on the canals and the wonderful advantages that fishing gave. He spoke about regular fishermen along the banks of the canal who regularly hooked the same fish, patted them on the heads, were on first name terms with them and then threw them back into the canal. The fisheries element of the canals is something that we must safeguard. I believe that the Bill as designed contains those necessary safeguards. In view of that I would ask Senators to consider the withdrawal of their amendments.
I do not understand why this is such a sticky matter for us to resolve. I take this opportunity to compliment the Minister in his other capacity in relation to arts and culture in which he comes across to the commissioners on a regular basis. I am sure he has been impressed by them and by the way in which the Office of Public Works have behaved and the work they have done. Everyone here knows of some commendable work carried out by the Office of Public Works.
The Minister of State spoke about the concern the Government would have in the Office of Public Works being challenged. From my earlier experience of the Office of Public Works in the area dealing with a national monument which was a major feature of discussion — years later they are publishing books on the episode — the Commissioners of Public Works were not all that concerned about being challenged. I am not sure that that holds as much water as the Minister would suggest.
I am pleased that at least this matter has been discussed in Government and that some attempt is being made to resolve the point that I and other Senators have been making, that is, that at least there will be a liaison committee to consider matters in relation to the improvement and development of canal property where there is likely to be an affect on fish stocks. This is where the Minister and I part company. I hope it will not be for long; perhaps on Report Stage he will come back with something useful to say. I do not understand how the commissioners can set themselves up as experts on everything that would necessarily affect fish stocks. They are laymen, professional administrators in the Office of Public Works and they are the people who are to tell us all about a huge variety of matters, from ancient remains to new buildings, to handling the restoration of churches, to building Howth Harbour and now the development of the canal system. They are to be experts on fish stocks and management. They will be able to tell us what affects fish stocks and fish management and the development of the canal system in relation to fishing. I do not think they could be in a position to know when to consult the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. I do not see why, when the Department of Fisheries and Forestry is situated about three minutes away from the Office of Public Works there could not be a permanent liaison committee on every matter relating to the development of the canal system. That is really what I would press on the Minister and hope that he would see it as being a reasonable request. I will not press the amendment, if asked not to, but I would ask the Minister to bring this matter a little further and to come back on Report Stage with an improvement on the liaison committee idea.
The failure of CIE in regard to the Royal Canal is that there was no planned approach on any works which were carried out on the canal. I identified the various areas and from various sources and the way in which works were carried out. The whole element of planning is central to the amendment which Senators FitzGerald and McDonald are proposing. Unless you have a planned approach to the canals there is no point in having liaison on fisheries. There is no point in having, for example, as I have called for, a liaison between the Departments of the Environment and Labour. I will go a step further and say that I see it as a priority that within the Office of Public Works a planning committee or a staff would be allocated to form a planning committee which as a first priority would draw up a plan for the canals. This is the difficulty about establishing what the role is in terms of whether it is navigation, fishing or an amenity. This is where we are having the argument about fishing and whereby we are justifying spending money on one type of bridge as opposed to another.
With regard to the point about not having any money, here we are back to drawing up a plan and going into formal liaison — not loose links but formal liaison, once the Office of Public Works draw up their own plan. The Minister for Labour has indicated that quite an amount of money is available for works on the canals, through the social employment scheme. Equally the Department of the Environment in the past have allocated moneys on environmental work schemes which have been applied to the canal. AnCO have a role to play here. It would justify the cost incurred to make an allocation to this purpose. I am not sure whether money has been actually allocated for a special planning staff within the Office of Public Works. If it is not it should be provided for.
I support the amendment. It is a pity that it was not extended to cover other amenities in the canal. Fishing is an extremely important amenity and it is one in which I have no doubt, the Minister, as he has indicated to us, has an interest. Therefore, we can feel fairly confident that in having this debate and having the Minister's interest we are in safe hands at the moment.
I would hope that the Minister would consider the other amenities of the canal and the other committees which have also been working. There are a number of those committees, such as the local authority committee, which have not been very active and have not met very often. The reason for that is that they got little or no co-operation from CIE. I would hope that the Minister would encourage that committee to meet more often and to advise the Commissioners of Public Works on how the amenities can be preserved and improved.
For example, the Royal Canal Amenities Group is grant-aided by one local authority of which I have been a member for many years. I am sure they have been grant-aided by other local authorities. These people should be encouraged. To say the least, they have been discouraged by the previous owners of the canal. Our local authority found it almost impossible to deal with CIE. Whatever may result from the transfer of the canals from CIE to the Commissioners of Public Works the position cannot be worse than it has been in the past.
I remember being involved in the acquisition of a small portion of land along the canal in south county Dublin. The negotiations took up to seven years. CIE insisted on examination of every avenue and legal aspect before they would agree to any improvement along the canal.
There is, of course, the project in Robertstown which was started by the late Father Murphy many years ago. It has been taken over by the Dublin and Eastern Regional Tourism Organisation. This organisation should be consulted without delay. It is their intention to improve that amenity and to have the barge or canal pleasure boat service extended even into the city.
This amenity should not be held up. The Eastern Regional Tourism Organisation have been extremely anxious to have this amenity. They stepped in at a time when the results obtained by Father Murphy seemed to be dwindling after his death. There was no driving force to keep the project going. This organisation stepped in and took over the project at a time when it was in disarray and likely to be abandoned.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Does the Senator know we are on amendments 2 and 3 of section 5 of the Bill?
Of course, I do. I will finish on that, having drawn the Minister's attention to the necessity of preserving all the amenities along the canals, including fishing. Any committee that has been working along any part of a canal should be consulted and encouraged by the Commissioners of Public Works and their advice should be obtained. I would ask the Minister to maintain involvement of the local authorities because there is no doubt that most of the local authorities would be only too happy to expend money to improve the amenities. I am quite sure that is what the Office of Public Works and the Minister would like to see done.
Although there are differences between what some Senators would like to see in the Bill and what is in the Bill, it is significant that all of the contributions to the debate ended up on a positive note, just as Senator McMahon's did now, indicating the great potential that is there. We all have an obligation to make this legislation as good as it can be.
The Minister for Fisheries and Forestry has statutory responsibility for fisheries with particular reference to conservation and improvement of fish stock. It will be necessary for the Commissioners of Public Works to consult him, as in section 5 (2), nearly along the lines Senator FitzGerald would like. In addition, we have set up a liaison committee.
Senator McMahon suggested the need for consultation with, for example, the tourism organisations, Bord Fáilte and other interested parties. This is something which the Office of Public Works do and I do not think it is necessary to have a statutory provision for it. Senator McAuliffe-Ennis spoke about the potential for employment through the Social Employment Fund and various other funds, and through community endeavour. There is enormous potential. I do not think it is necessary to have this provided for in the Bill because there will be a great desire on the part of the Office of Public Works to use the goodwill of the community which will be very important in so far as the work is concerned and in regard to conservation and the good appearance of the canals and their protection against vandalism.
I am Minister of State at the Department of Communications. The canals belong to CIE but we are transferring them to the Office of Public Works which comes under the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Joe Bermingham. I cannot give absolute undertakings on behalf of the Office of Public Works. All I can do is convey faithfully what the Senators have said.
I am worried about the fact that a sizeable proportion of the legislation coming through here comes under the heading Money Bill. The Seanad is not empowered to amend such Bills. Ministers are loath to have Bills going back to the Dáil with recommendations. All the Senators who have spoken on this Bill have shown definite consensus. The Minister said he is not in charge of the Bill, that we should have two Ministers sitting there. The House is entitled to put its stamp on a Bill. This is what we are here for. I am disappointed that the Minister should have put up that argument, which is very serious and challenges our very presence here.
I have great respect for the Office of Public Works. I could pay a compliment to the Office of Public Works by saying they are the nearest to God's mills — they are very slow but they grind exceeding sure. Coming up to August bank holiday, the people of Vicarstown will want to have coarse fishing competitions. They will ask CIE to cut the weeds. CIE will come down at the last minute and spray the area and then the organisers will say the fish are gone. Will the Office of Public Works over a weekend or over a short time contact the Department of Fisheries to have a review of that practice? I am confident that the Department of Fisheries would not be in favour of spraying. The Office of Public Works would not be able to get a review in one season. This is a specialist area. The Department have boards of conservators and a network covering the 257 miles of canal. There are local people involved in each of the areas covered. I see no reason why the shots are not being called by the Department.
Like Senator McDonald I am not completely satisfied with the Minister's response. Generally, as is traditional in Ireland, we like to welcome visitors into this House. That welcome is extended to the Minister who has been here, I appreciate, on previous occasions.
Recently we discussed the Dental Bill in this House. Members of the other House are not always aware of the level of amendment that takes place on some Bills that come before this House first. In the case of the Dental Bill the amendment was so considerable that it was quite a different Bill when it left Seanad Éireann.
I have made one request today in which I have been joined by other Senators. I have not asked the Minister to amend the text of the Bill but I have asked him to amend the terms of reference relating to the liaison committee. I do not see why we cannot have at Report Stage, after discussion with the Office of Public Works and the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, some real movement in the development of the canal system. I hope all factors affecting fish stock and the management of the canals in relation to fish will be part and parcel of essential consultation with the Department of Fisheries and Forestry.
We have all been hearing over the years of difficulties between different semi-State bodies who operate in cities abroad and how they do or they do not get on. Here we are talking about two parts of the same Civil Service operating in Dublin 2. Surely they can get together frequently and can have a special informal committee established between them to manage this situation and informal liaison that is not part and parcel of the Bill, that is part and parcel of an arrangement which has come from Government but which we now wish to have extended. It is reasonable to ask the Minister to explore the possibility of that. We may not have this Bill next week. The Minister probably has a fortnight to make progress on it. The matter that is before the other House today will, I presume, be before this House next week and for that reason we may not be able to deal with the canals next week.
I understand the Minister's difficulty in that he is transferring from one Department to another Department. As Senator McDonald rightly said, perhaps we should have two Ministers here. I will go further and say perhaps we should have three Ministers. From CIE's point of view the Minister for Communications should have considerable input in that responsibility for the mistakes made in relation, in particular, to the Royal Canal, must be carried by CIE. It is fair to say that CIE were in an understandable position with regard to what their priorities were but it is very bad to proceed to promote what is believed to be an improvement on a faulty base.
I am in regular contact with the inland waterways groups and they are tremendously excited about this transfer from CIE to OPW because they see the potential involved in the improvement of the condition of the canals. If the Minister so changes ownership and makes no reference to informal liaison, and no reference to the requests made by various interest groups and does not call on the Minister for Finance to make special allocation of planning staff, if the canals are to be handed over to the OPW under the circumstances which have existed to date, we are wasting our time here today. I am not going out of my way to be critical. I am extremely interested that from day one things would be right and everything would be organised, planned and structured and that the mistakes that have been made over the years would not be repeated.
Senator McDonald may have misinterpreted me. The Department of Communications are the sponsoring Department. We are responsible for this Bill. It is unusual that once we have delivered of this Bill it moves into another Department. That is what it is all about. That creates a difficulty in so far as I do not know whether it will be treated on an ordinary organisational basis within the Office of Public Works or as a special section. How they will handle that aspect is something which is not put into a Bill. That is not the type of thing that goes into legislation. That does not mean to say that the wishes of the Senators will not be conveyed and understood clearly by them. Obviously, they will operate in what they consider the most efficient manner possible.
This is a major organisation of 250 miles of canals that is coming into them and which they very much welcome. It is not being imposed on them. It is a task which they are very glad to receive as an integral part of their general activity in the heritage area. I have no doubt that it will be in good hands.
Senators FitzGerald and McDonald have been emphasising the fisheries area. I do not attempt to suggest that any Bill that comes before the House is a perfect Bill or that it cannot be amended in a variety of ways even though a great deal of work and time has gone into the drafting. We are here to see if the legislation can be amended. It would be a totally fruitless exercise to resist for the sake of resisting. There is absolutely no intention in that respect. We will have a detailed examination of the Senators' contributions and the various points that have been made between now and Report Stage.
I understand the Minister's difficulty in terms of writing in certain things or omitting certain things from a Bill. It is clear that the commissioners have been given certain duties. One of the duties which must be seen as the prime duty of the commissioners, is to plan the working and the use of the canals. The Minister's point of view and the Department's point of view, their experience and their knowledge of the difficulties which have arisen and the knowledge and expertise acquired by years of working in the area would be invaluable to such a planning section.
Is the amendment being withdrawn?
Yes, subject to the Minister's undertaking.
It is a pity that the amendment is being withdrawn. It is a pity that the Minister has not seen fit to accept the amendment.
It is being withdrawn on the undertaking the Minister gave to have a serious look at it between now and Report Stage.
I understand that but it is a pity that the Minister did not see fit to accept the amendment so that it could be enshrined in the Bill. It is a most unsatisfactory situation. We all know the Minister here is interested in fishing. I am casting no reflection on the Minister into whose Department the canals now pass. It would be a far different thing if we had that Minister here before us so that we could have an assurance of certain things being done. No matter what suggestions we put forward here the Minister here today cannot give the assurance that they will be accepted because he has been given the responsibility merely of guiding this legislation through the House. That having been done, he can only advise the Minister as to the Seanad's fears regarding amenities or otherwise along the canals.
I wonder if there is some procedure whereby the Seanad could get a report on the canals from the Minister later in the year, when the canals have passed from CIE into the Office of Public Works, some report of likely improvement works along the canals, as to what committees are being consulted; whether the local authorities committee, which I spoke of earlier, will be encouraged to meet. I do not know if the Office of Public Works are aware that such a committee exists because it has been so inactive over the years for the reasons I outlined earlier. Many people who are interested in canals are not aware that this committee exists. There is a committee comprised of officials and members of local authorities through whose counties the canals flow.
It would be a pity if any works were undertaken by the Office of Public Works along the canals without consulting this committee and many of the other important organisations, for example, the Royal Canal Amenities Group, the Dublin and Eastern Regional Tourist Organisation and Bord Fáilte. All these organisations should be consulted. The Minister before us cannot give us that assurance. He can only assure us that he will pass on our request to the responsible Minister. Could we be informed if there is any procedure whereby a report on the transfer of the canals to the Office of Public Works could come before us at a later date in the year, when we would have an opportunity to have before us the Minister responsible for carrying out any works or discontinuing any works which are at present being carried out along the canals? This is a serious matter.
I was extremely disappointed last week that the Bill received so little attention in the press. Of course, we know that press attention was drawn in other directions. I am sure the same is happening today, that the attention of the press is again drawn in other directions and we will get little or no publicity for the Seanad, not that that is anything new except for yesterday when we got considerably more publicity than we normally get, certainly on radio. I would hope the press will give some attention to this Bill, if not while it is before the Seanad, at least when it is going through the Dáil.
There are many people interested in the canals and in the amenities they provide. Indeed many are eager to assist but have been inhibited from so doing because of the difficulty in dealing with the present owners of these two waterways. I do not know if the Cathaoirleach is in a position to inform us now if it would be possible to have the Minister responsible for the canals, when they have been transferred to him, here in this House to give us an opportunity to cover some of the ground we have covered today and also to cover ground that we would cover if we had the responsible Minister here.
I do not understand why the Minister cannot accept the amendment proposed by Senators FitzGerald and McDonald. He has praised us for the great people we are and how we go through each Bill section by section, yet I am sure he is convinced that his colleagues, who are sitting very near him, are right. I do not understand why he cannot accept the amendment. Does he not have the power? Is he just getting this Bill through this House and then it is the responsibility of another member of the Government? There are wide implications in these sections. I would certainly not be happy if we just fobbed it off. The amendment should be accepted.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
Yes, the amendment is withdrawn on the understanding that we will submit it on Report Stage.
Can I ask if you could give us any information on whether it would be possible to have a debate on the canals at a later stage when they are transferred to the Office of Public Works?
Any question of a report is a matter for the Minister. The Senator can put down a motion on it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
The Minister mentioned that the commissioners could get involved with other interested groups, such as the tourist boards, to deal with the amenity area. The Bill does not confer power on the commissioners to join with others in any undertaking. There is no mention in section 6 that they can do that. I wonder why that conferring of powers was not specifically mentioned. The Minister keeps saying you do not want to write things into Bills, that it is better to have negotiations on them. The section does not seem to me to confer those powers.
Section 6(e) says:
to close to navigation any part of a canal not required for navigation and reopen and declare navigable any part of a canal previously closed to navigation.
In the Act which CIE were operating under, it was stated quite specifically that navigation had to continue as long as there was a navigation on the canal within a three year period. There was a protection there that if there was one usage of the canal in a particular three year period CIE could not close it. This section gives the commissioners power to close the canals and it does not state what is meant by a closure to navigation when a canal is not required. It does not give us any indication of what is meant by that. Equally, as there was a protection in the old Act I wonder why there is none here? Why is it not stated that there is a right of appeal available to anybody who might feel aggrieved because of the closure?
There is mention of the powers of acquisition here and that the commissioners can acquire compulsorily any land, any easement or right over other land. Up to now CIE could work on only one particular side of the canal. They could not work on both sides. They could work only on the side on which the canal wayleave was. Do the commissioners now have a right to use both sides of the canals for any type of repair work or whatever is necessary to maintain the canals? Does this section take into account the rights to wayleave on the River Barrow? The section mentions canals. My information is that CIE actually own the River Barrow from Athy to St. Mullins. There is no mention made of the River Barrow in this section. I am not sure if it is covered by some other section but it does not seem to be. You could say that there is a natural river there but CIE owned it. Therefore, it should be specifically mentioned that when we mention canals we are also talking about rivers which are canalised or whatever. The important point is the question of the closure to navigation and the right to appeal.
I realise the Minister has told us on a few occasions that the Office of Public Works will consult with everybody. I am worried that the people who are using the canals, the boat people, who are the experts on what is needed along the canals, are not mentioned here. The section states that the commissioners shall have all such powers as are necessary for the performance of their functions, to dredge, widen, deepen, construct, alter, underpin and so on. I would be afraid that an engineer in the Office of Public Works could cast his cold eye over a canal and decide that from an engineering point of view steps would be very suitable in this section although from a boating point of view it may not necessarily be the ideal decision to make. Would the Minister consider inserting in that section before the next Stage "consulting the inland waterways"? The people who are using the different sections of the water are the experts on what is actually needed. Many of them have helped CIE beyond the call of duty by cutting down bushes along canal locks. I would like if under section 6 we could bring in the inland waterways to make sure that local knowledge will be there and that the people who use the canals will get what they want and not what technically might be imposed by an engineer.
Senator Browne is quite right about this vagueness in the Bill, particularly in terms of navigation. In one part it charges OPW to do certain duties and it does not say in what area. Even more suspiciously it also allows them to close for navigation any part of a canal not required for navigation. Who decides what part of any canal is required for navigation? That is a clear indication to me that although the prime function of canals should be navigation, this will not be the case. Will the Minister tell me the good news or the bad news, is the commitment to navigation gone? Are we saying now that the prime role of the canals is navigation or are we saying it is not? My prime interest in the canals is navigation. I call on the Government at this stage to commit themselves to a policy of restoring the canals to navigation. I am saying this for a very good reason, that in making such a statement it would automatically disallow the further building of culverts and so on. I would appreciate a statement on the whole area of navigation.
A variety of points have been raised. Senator Lanigan mentioned the use of both sides of the canal. This is provided for in section 10 subject to consultation with the landowners. As regards the inclusion of the Barrow that is covered in the definition of canals.
As regards the major point on navigation which has been mentioned this is in paragraph (e). It was put there as a housekeeping exercise whereby, when works are being carried out, it will be in the power of the commissioners to close a section of the canal in order to do their particular work. Difficulties have arisen in that respect in the past with boats demanding passage over particular areas that were under repair.
I do not know that there are any fears in relation to what Senator McAuliffe-Ennis is concerned about. This is being handed over to the Commissioners of Public Works as a public amenity, not just for navigation but also for fishing and all types of enjoyment and uses to which it can be put. We are entering on an improved era as far as the Office of Public Works are concerned. The question of bringing back the areas that are not now navigable is another issue which is of major concern. It might be possible to make some progress on that in the years ahead.
At the moment we have the navigable parts of the Grand Canal. I do not think one needs to have any worries about that. The Senator's worry is, of course, primarily in the Longford area where 30 miles are dry. It is sad to see this. I know the Office of Public Works will assess the situation. There are certain offshoots from the canals which might be used for fish farming or specific fish interests which could be damaged if boats continue to go into parts of the canals which are not an integral part of the navigation system. I can see that type of development taking place but they are only refinements of the general operation. We should not lose sight of the fact that we believe we are making progress here. That is the intention of handing it over to the Office of Public Works, to take it away from CIE, where it did not belong to the main stream of their activities, and enable them to get on with their own business of providing transport. This is being handed over to the Office of Public Works. Fears have been expressed in the House. The feeling of the House will be conveyed to the Office of Public Works.
Senator Browne made a point regarding consultation. I understand that the inland waterways people are coming in for consultation tomorrow on this area, although it is a bit late as far as they are concerned. All interested groups should contact the Office of Public Works right away. The Office of Public Works have confirmed that they will consult as they are doing extensively at the moment. They are anxious to meet straight away the various people who have interest in this thing. Once this Bill is through the Seanad and the Dáil the vesting day will be as soon as possible. Everyone agrees that this transfer, with all the safeguards that have been suggested, should take place as soon as possible.
With regard to the closure and the provisions that were in the former Bill, which gave protection to users that if there was a navigation made on a canal within a three year period the canal would have to remain open, even though the Minister has given us certain undertakings here it still says that the commissioners have the right to close to navigation. There is no mention made of a right to appeal against this closure.
The Minister mentioned the Inland Waterways Association and various other bodies that might be asked to come in to consult. If it were not for people of the Inland Waterways Association like Mr. Duggan and Mr. Peter Thomas in Carlow and Mr. Paddy Nolan of the South Eastern Regional Tourism, the Barrow would not be open at present for navigation. If it was not for the fact that they, between 1963 and 1968, fought extremely strongly, the total southern end of the Barrow would be completely closed. If my memory serves me, from Jigginstown to Carlow would also be closed were it not for the work done further up by the Inland Waterways. Why has the right to appeal been taken out and why is there not a mention here of the conditions under which an area which could be used for navigation could be closed?
I would like to thank the Minister for his reply to my questions. It is worth while putting on the record of this House the activity that has taken place across the five counties through which the Royal Canal passes. The Labour Party councillors have submitted motions and they have been adopted by the five councils involved to form a liaison group across the five counties operating in conjunction with OPW, the Department of Labour, the inland waterways groups, including the Royal Canal Amenity Group, with a view to expenditure under the social employment scheme on restoration works on the canals. I see that as a major move in that it underlines the recognition by the public as a whole of the need for consultation, working together and tapping in to all available and potential sources to ensure that this work is carried out.
Could I bring to the attention of the Minister — I think Senator Lanigan and other Senators have already brought it to his attention — that there appears to be a change in policy, and it can be seen with regard to paragraph (e) in relation to the power to close navigation on part of the canal. When that is taken in conjunction with the general duty of the commissioners and the boards in section 5, it can be seen that there is no longer a general duty on the commissioners to keep the canals open for navigation. That is no longer a general duty. That is a dramatic change. I am not saying whether it is right or wrong; that is a matter for people who are more skilled in that area and who have more knowledge of the canals than I have. The commissioners will be empowered to close to navigation any part of the canal, and I presume that includes all the canal, if they want to. This could be done on a temporary basis or on a permanent basis and still fall within the general duty of the commissioners and the board imposed on it by section 5, which has already been passed. It appears that it is true to say that no longer will there be a general duty on those in authority over the canals to even endeavour to keep them navigable. As long as they decide that any section should not be kept open for navigation, under this Bill they are entitled to close it and nobody will be able to take legal action against them. I would appreciate it if the Minister would tell me if I am wrong.
There is a little confusion about the three year rule that existed before. That operated on the Grand Canal, but in 1960, as we all know well, CIE closed down large sections of the Royal Canal. CIE were handling the canals then because they were a transport company but the canals are now being handed over to the Office of Public Works to be statutorily a public amenity under the care of the Commissioners of Public Works. They must in the final analysis have the power to decide how the property is to be managed in the public interest and with the statutory obligation of a public amenity, which the canals are. They obviously must exercise their powers reasonably and I have no doubt that they will. An example of what they have been doing in this respect is their work on the Shannon navigation works. That has been under their control, and this is why there is such a welcome for the movement towards the Office of Public Works. They must be given flexibility and we must trust the authority that both Houses of the Oireachtas have in subsequent developments. Under the 1960 Act, as far as the Royal Canal was concerned, we had the closing down of large sections of the canal as it went through Longford — 30 miles out of the 90 miles plus. Nobody need have any worry about the navigation areas that now exist in the canal, because that is an amenity that was there and it can co-exist easily with the other amenities of fishing, swimming and all the other things for which the canal can be used. There is no conflict. There may be certain sections which might be used for specific purposes, off-shoots of the canals or whatever is the technical term, but there need be no great worry in that respect.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
In general I agree with section 7 but there seems to be an incongruity here. The section provides for a fine not exceeding £1,000 for certain offences but it includes bathing in canals. It is ludicrous to have section 7(e) included here, when you are talking about fines not exceeding £1,000 or £100 for every day on which the contravention is continued. It would seem as if when a young person dives into the canal and is told to get out because he is contravening the by-law he could be fined £1,000 or £100 a day thereafter.
On the alteration of water levels on the canals, if in a situation where drainage schemes are going ahead and the water levels of the canal are drastically lowered would the people involved in these drainage schemes be brought under this section? On the drainage of the Boyne, the Brosna and the Inny, there is no doubt that there was a total loss of many miles of canal for the purpose of navigation.
Apart from those two items there is nothing I object to. When mooring is mentioned in this section on the canal, does it mean that somebody would not be allowed to moor their boat without a charge or is the Minister trying to protect against people dumping boats on the canal and pretending that they are moored there? Could the Minister clarify that for me?
I know what is down here is "to a fine not exceeding £1,000" and some of my boating friends and legal experts say that might be £1 but they certainly are worried that a figure as big as that is mentioned because there could be convictions for what are almost trivialities. If "a fine not exceeding £5,000" means that the normal fine would be £5 it might not cause any great worries. Could the Minister explain why it is worded in such a way that the fines appear to be very big when maybe in reality they will not be?
You could equally have a situation where there would be major damage to the canals and the fine not exceeding £1,000 could end up as a fine of £5. So two ridiculous situations could arise. It might be better to consider a definite level of fines depending on the severity of the offence, and where grave damage is caused to the canals a hefty penalty should be imposed.
This section gives the Commissioners of Public Works the power to make by-laws in order to protect the property and for the care, management, maintenance and control and the regulation of the use of the canals and it specifies the maximum penalties for breaches of those by-laws and empowers the commissioners to bring court proceedings for summary offences arising from such breaches. The proposed maximum penalties are intended to match the gravity of the offence by distinguishing between summary and indictable offences and they are modelled directly on the offences under the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977. The bringing of court proceedings for indictable offences arises from breaches of the commissioners' by-laws. It would be the responsibility of the Director of Public Prosecutions to bring those proceedings by virtue of the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974. They set down the maximum penalties and differentiations between summary and indictable offences. These are modelled on what was supposed to be the most acceptable precedent that existed, the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977. Senator Lanigan mentioned that bathing could not be regarded as a serious offence. There are types of bathing which could be a serious distraction to passing boats but there are other difficulties that could be created by bathing. Generally speaking, I would accept what Senator Lanigan has said, that it is not a very serious offence but there could be difficulties created at certain times and provision has to be made for them. As far as the question of moorings is concerned, the idea is not so much as a revenue earning source but to get control over people leaving boats on the canal for all time and causing pollution. At some future stage we may have boats queueing up to get through the canal and it would be a revenue earning situation then, but I do not think that is the purpose here. It is in order to ensure some manner of control for the commissioners to prevent despoliation of the canal area. As regards offences, the section is modelled on what was thought the best model governing pollution, which was the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977. These are maximum offences. It is up to the courts to decide what the actual penalty for offences committed should be.
On subsection 7 (6) (b); this is something which seems to be creeping into all forms of legislation and which in my opinion is complete civil service nonsense. The general rule under section 10 (4) of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act is that summary proceedings must be brought within six months of the offence being committed. If you drive your car too fast the guard must summon you to court within six months. That is the general law which applies in respect of all summary proceedings. I notice, since coming to the House that in quite a number of this kind of Bills, these summary proceedings are being extended on an individual item by item basis from six to 12 months. I do not see any sense or rhyme or reason to that. We are only talking about summary proceedings; we are not talking about proceedings on indictment, in other words, matters that would go before a jury, for which the more serious penalties are envisaged. I do not see any reason why the commissioners, who are given the power to bring summary proceedings under this section, should not be expected to do their business expeditiously. If the law applies to the Garda Síochána to bring summonses in general within six months, why should the commissioners be given 12 months to bring their summonses? I do not see any sense in it other than trying to protect the inefficiency or potential inefficiency within a Government Department. This idea has been introduced into a number of Bills. There seems to be no logical reason why the general law, which is that summary proceedings must be within six months, should not be followed. If there is some mysterious reason why the period should be extended from six to 12 months let us hear it. Otherwise we should do the decent thing and change the general law or we should expect these people to prosecute within six months. It only means that people must be summonsed within six months. The cases can be heard two years later. All it means is that you must issue the summons within six months. Why provide 12 months to issue a summons? If someone bathes in the Royal Canal at a time, place or manner in which he should not do so why should he or she be subject to prosecution for a period of 12 months? That is out of all proportion to reality. It is an unnecessary development in this kind of minor, petty laws which I have noticed in a number of statutes coming before this House. The general law under the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, sets a period of six months. I do not see any good reason why we should depart from that on this occasion.
As Senator O'Leary points out, it has become fairly standard practice in recent times to extend the period. Section 10 (4) of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, allows six months from the date of an offence for the bringing of summary proceedings. The six months period has proved too short to initiate proceedings in some instances because of the time required to complete investigations, interview witnesses and collect the necessary evidence. It has become the standard practice, but it is not necessarily followed in all legislation. Perhaps the next Bill will not have it but as far as this Bill is concerned it was thought that for certain offences like pollution the tracing of the person responsible for the pollution and the building up of evidence could, by the very nature of the offence, take a considerable time. That is the reasonable attitude that was taken. It was felt that for a variety of reasons but in particular for that type of offence it might be necessary to have the prolonged period. Because of that it was felt wise to extend the period. Perhaps six months would do as far as bathing and other things are concerned but on specific instances such as pollution it was felt that 12 months would be a wise safeguard here.
If there is a problem in an individual case you can proceed on indictment. In other words, because the six months is gone it does not mean that you cannot prosecute. It just means you cannot prosecute summarily; you can still proceed on indictment. The number of cases where this would be a real issue if people were doing their job properly would be infinitesimal. Even in respect of that infinitesimal number of cases they can still be charged on indictment. I do not see where the problem arises. There is no general time limit for indictable offences. You can come back 20 years later for an indictable offence. I do not see any reason why we should allow these things to creep into our law. As the Minister said, this has become almost standard practice. If it is necessary, we should examine the basic legislation rather than changing things a little bit at a time. It is like the problem that has arisen with regard to Members of the Oireachtas not being eligible for this committee or that committee, which has been mentioned frequently here as becoming a standard kind of thing being put into legislation which is establishing a new body of one kind or another. It is regarded as standard that a Member of the Oireachtas or a person who is nominated for the Seanad or a person who is nominated to the Dáil automatically loses membership of such body. It is becoming standard practice without our ever deciding it. Why should this become standard practice without our ever deciding it? I should like the Minister to reconsider this matter before Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 8 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."
I am not sure as to what is involved here. I understand there was a public inquiry into the drawing off of water from Lough Owel for the town of Mullingar, in the region of 500,000 gallons per day. An amendment is proposed in the section and there is a possibility that there could be a draw off of up to six and a half million gallons per day. My information is that the total water availability in Lough Owel is around six and a half million gallons a day and if this amount of water is to be drawn off there will be none left for the canals in the area. Lough Owel is the highest point and the only source of water for any canal west of it. I should like to know what is the situation in this regard. If the total amount of water available is six and a half million gallons per day, how can anybody agree to giving six and a half million gallons of water to the county of Westmeath?
No difficulty arises here as to the quantities of water. This section provides for the amendment of section 21 of the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Act, 1894 dealing with the taking of water from Lough Owel near Mullingar in County Westmeath. This will have effect from vesting day, the day on which the canals will transfer to the commissioners. The main effect of the section is the removal of an out-of-date limit on the quantity of water which Westmeath County Council can take from Lough Owel to supply the town of Mullingar and also to enable it to supply water to the surrounding areas from this source. Westmeath County Council and the Commissioners of Public Works have been in consultation on this matter. The lake is the main water supply of the Royal Canal. A balance, therefore, has to be struck between the needs of the Royal Canal and those of the town of Mullingar and its surrounding areas. It will be a matter for these bodies to agree on the quantities of water which may be taken from time to time from Lough Owel to supply Mullingar and surrounding areas. As it stands, section 21 of the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Act puts a limit of 500,000 gallons per day on the quantity of water which can be taken. The present water requirements of the town of Mullingar are estimated to be of the order of five million gallons per day. It is understood that the Commissioners of Public Works would see no objection to meeting this requirement. There is no difficulty being created by this change. The town of Mullingar is using water at this point in time and rather than specify the higher limits which could be too restrictive, paragraph (a) of the section leaves it to Westmeath County Council and to the commissioners to agree on the actual quantity of water to be taken from time to time. I do not envisage any difficulty arising along the lines that Senator Lanigan has outlined. I know the difference between five million gallons and 500,000 seems enormous but the experts in this area do not anticipate any difficulty arising. It is up to the Westmeath County Council and the Commissioners of Public Works to decide on what the quantity is. I am convinced the supply is there.
Does that take into account the requirements of the fisheries people who, I understand, need three million gallons of water per day to maintain the fish stocks? I said that the capacity of the lake was five and a half million gallons, I am sorry, it can range between six and ten million gallons. When the lake will be at its lowest level it does not seem that there will be sufficient water to provide what is necessary for fishing, for the canals and for the county council. The council's draw-off would be at its highest level when the amount of water in the lake would be at its lowest level.
This question of water levels, particularly the Lough Owel situation, arose with the submission from Westmeath County Council in relation to the Mullingar Independent Water Supply Scheme. There are statutory levels agreed between CIE and the Department of the Environment which must be maintained in Lough Owel specifically for the supply of water to the canals. This issue has been well discussed at local level in County Westmeath. The county engineer's approach to this is that he has made provision for an alternative or back-up supply into Lough Owel which will not interfere with the statutory level and the supply of water to the canals.
There is a lot of water being used around Mullingar at the moment. I cannot be more specific than that. When vesting day comes it will not make much difference to the level of Lough Owel.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 14 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill."
Could the Minister indicate when the vesting day might be?
It all depends on the progress of the Bill through this House and afterwards in the Dáil. There is no reason for delay assuming that all the matters raised on staff can be sorted out through negotiations. The transfer to the Commissioners of Public Works of the associated rights and powers and duties will take place as soon as is possible and practical. Naturally there are a number of things which have to be done in the ordinary course of events but there is no insurmountable thing that will take any long drawn out period.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 19 agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Next Stage?
In a fortnight's time.
I thought it was next week.
As there was a request made to the Minister to bring in changes on Report Stage we thought a bit of time——
It can be listed for next week and we can see what the situation is.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 27th February 1985.
Sitting suspended at 5.30 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.